Clause 24 response from Tim Loughton MP

by Readers Question

10:12 AM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Clause 24 response from Tim Loughton MP

Make Text Bigger
Clause 24 response from Tim Loughton MP

This is the response I received from my local Conservative MP from East Worthing, who obviously is another one who doesn’t understand the Bill and its implications:tim

Dear Mr…

Thank you for contacting me about changes to the taxation of landlords.

I am passionate about helping small businesses thrive. But this needs to be balanced against the interests of the wider economy including home ownership rates, a fairer tax system and mitigating against any future risks.

The Bank of England outlined two risks from high and rising levels of household indebtedness: a direct risk to UK banking system, and an indirect risk to economic stability. The Government is working hard to restore this country’s economic stability and the measures you talk about will help achieve this. With the above in mind I think it is right that the Government restricts the tax relief that landlords of residential property can get.

The current tax system supports landlords over and above ordinary homeowners, with tax relief particularly benefiting wealthier landlords with larger incomes. Every £1 of finance cost they incur allows them to pay 40p or 45p less tax.

The Changes to Mortgage Interest Relief do not tax landlords on turnover as opposed to profit. Rather, they remove mortgage interest from what is qualified as ‘allowable expenses’. Maintenance and repairs (along with agents’ fees, legal fees, insurance, utilities, and service charges) are all still ‘allowable expenses’ and thus still tax deductible.

Changes to Stamp Duty Land Tax are part of the Government’s strategy to improve home ownership. It cannot be right that in many areas local people are being priced out of a home. Many second homes are cash purchases that aren’t affected by the restrictions on mortgage interest relief; and many of them are bought by those who aren’t resident in this country.

Less than 1 in 5 individual landlords are expected to pay more tax as a result of the restriction to Mortgage Tax Relief. Furthermore, this change is being introduced gradually from April 2017 over 4 years. This will give landlords time to plan for and adjust to these changes.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Tim Loughton MP
Member of Parliament for East Worthing & Shoreham



Comments

Gary Nock

10:25 AM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Fiddling while Rome burns....well the PRS anyway. This man has just trottted out George Osborne's claptrap Budget speech and has not taken the time to understand Section 24.

Gary Dully

10:36 AM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Firstly, well done for trying.

How's about upping it up a gear?

Contact your local paper and tell them that your local MP supports the removal of all DSS tenants from his constituency and the PRS unless they pay the Tenant Tax.

This guy is lazy and thick and is happy for you to go bankrupt, so show him no mercy.

Mark Alexander

10:41 AM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Did you give him the #TenantTax explainer leaflet?

If not, I suggest you click on the link below, print it off and send it to him with a reply letter requesting a further meeting to discuss the contents.

Post works better than email and requesting a further meeting to discuss the document will increase the chances of him actually reading it.

Link >>> https://media.property118.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hsv8qXnr1K.pdf

It may also be worth doing the same with your local newspaper editor
.

James Fraser

11:27 AM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Another clueless berk who hasn't even tried to understand the issue.

Definitely do as Mark says. Write back to him with the printout and tell him that since he clearly has only sent on the treasury's pre-printed claptrap and hasn't understood the issues, you urgently need to meet with him.

If he meets you, excellent. If he doesn't, you can write again - copying in the local press - following Gary's excellent advice and asking him to explain why he hates tenants, particularly DSS tenants, and where he expects them to go.

You could also copy in Worthing/County councils to ask about their homeless budget and get the MP to comment on where these people will live and how much more it will cost the public purse to put them in a Travelodge.

Douglas Barley

12:26 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

I cannot believe any one can still be so stupid, Tim Loughton needs a real wake up call. When I met with my MP Glyn Davis a little while ago he showed real interest although he was not totally aware of what the tax would do when we first discussed the disaster about to happen. He has arranged to look up for himself in the commons library and also seek others in the commons to discuss further. Full marks to Glyn the kind of conservative MP who does not just repeat George Osbourne's clap trap but an MP who is prepared to have an open mind and see the position for himself. There are no promises but I feel that with this approach we will at least get a fair hearing and I am quite certain that clause 24 will be repealed or at least modified considerably so the government does not loose face.

Dave Binstead

12:47 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "28/09/2016 - 10:41":

Hi Mark, yes I did send him the leaflet as an attachment to my email HE OBVIOUSLY DIDNT READ IT!!

Mark Alexander

12:55 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dave Binstead" at "28/09/2016 - 12:47":

That's the trouble with emails, no haunting effect. They are too easy to open when you're on the move. If you do, and there is a large attachment, they often get deleted. Even with the best intentions to read at a later date they are often forgotten.

I'd suggest printing and posting as explained above.
.

Jonathan Clarke

13:13 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Four LHA tenants of mine Section 21`d so far and left the property . 20 or so to go
Frozen LHA rate for 3 bed is now about £100 below market rate where it was £100 above the market rate back in the day
In 4 years time it will be maybe reach £250 pcm behind because its been frozen. Totally unsustainable.
Replaced by working people
Benefit caps coming in later this year and UC will increase the rate of eviction

Calls to me desperate for housing are increasing exponentially. Some are heartbreaking and painful to listen to.
Families from my area in Milton Keynes being farmed out to travel lodges in Peterborough , Bedford, Dunstable etc - an hour away
Cant get back for schools / families / doctors etc . Massive social disruption and homelessness is being caused on a daily basis
Its a tenant tax not a landlord tax. My five fold increased tax bill will be paid by them .

Just increased rent on one property from £750 pcm LHA to £1050 pcm working. 1st person who viewed took it. It will be a big struggle for them but they have to pay for a roof over their head for them and their family. Children in 20`s now with family of their own now forced to live with parents in order to bring in maybe 4 wages to provide a roof. Not healthy living. No independence. Dysfunctionality will increase. This will spill over to increased costs for Police / NHS. The taxpayer suffers . I cant remember the last time i had a void
People chucking money at me without even viewing the property sometimes as they are that desperate

Clause 24 / LHA freezes / Benefit caps/ 3% SDLT all create the perfect storm for more evictions, higher rents and more homeless.
Its disgraceful

Mark Alexander

14:25 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Just tweeted ...

Chris Clare

15:18 PM, 28th September 2016
About 2 years ago

Financing to purchase a buy to let is no different to financing the purchase of a garage, shop, restaurant or any other business yet for some strange reason all those people can claim their interest costs (quite rightly) as a business expense.

Business expenses were always deductible on the basis that without the expense the income would not be forthcoming and therefore there would be absolutely no tax to collect. It has always been a pragmatic approach on the part of the revenue.

Can a mortgage to purchase a buy to let be any more part of that definition, without the mortgage no buy to let, without the buy to let no income, without income no tax.

This man's inability to see this very simple concept makes me think he is either very lazy (didn't take the time to understand the issue) or just plain stupid (unable to understand the issue).

1 2 6

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

And the landlord vote goes to - ?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More